CHAPTER I.

Mr. G.'s first argument, viz. The incarnation itself implies suffering. Sustained by reference to John 17: 5; "Father glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. And Phil. 2: 6-8; "Who being in the form of God-emptied himself." Refuted by reference to John 3: 13; "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven; even the son of man who is in heaven." John 1: 18; "The only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father;" also John 10: 30; and 14: 9, 10

The first argument of Mr. G. in support of his hypothesis, is thus stated. "The incarnation itself, is a death-blow to the hypothesis of God's impassibility. If the Godhead is of necessity impassible, one of its august persons could not have become incarnate. The mighty Being, who, in the fifth verse of the seventeenth chapter of John, uttered the prayer, And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,' I could have been none other than the second person of the Trinity, clothed, indeed, in flesh. The prayer itself demonstrates that the supplicant was not of earth, that he had come down from heaven, that he had existed there, and enjoyed the intimate fellowship of the Father before the world was created. It contains intrinsic evidence that, at the time of the prayer, the divine supplicant was sustaining the temporary privation of his glorious fellowship with the infinite Father, and that

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

29

he longed to have it restored. His prayer breathed forth his deep consciousness of the severity of the bereavement. It evinced a bereavement which had marred, for a time, his infinite beatitude. His eclipsed beatitude was not, for the moment like the ineffable beatitude which he had enjoyed before his incarnation. This very bereavement is but another name for suffering."

Again-He asks, " Has privation no suffering? Say, ye exiled princes, is there no suffering in privation! Say, ye fallen families, whose fortunes have taken to themselves wings and flown away, is there no suffering in privation? Declare, ye lately bereaved widows, ye newly smitten parents, from the depths of your breaking hearts, declare, is there no suffering in privation? The very incarnation, then, should have strangled in its cradle, the earth-born hypothesis,' God is impassible.'

999

According to this representation, the Second Person of the Trinity, in order to become incarnate, literally left heaven, and became, as it were, an exile in a distant world; removed far away from the presence of the other Persons of the Godhead, and deprived of "his glorious fellowship with his infinite Father." During the period of his humiliation, he was in a state of sore bereavment, like a widow who had lost her husband, or a parent who had lost his children, or a man who, from opulence, had been plunged into abject poverty. He is represented as breathing forth in his prayer, a "deep consciousness of the severity of his bereavement," and as ardently longing to be restored

to the communion and fellowship of his heavenly Father. All this we are taught to believe, was literally true of the Second Person of the Trinity. But, I ask, is this representation consistent with the attributes of God, or with the declarations of scripture ?

Con

Let it not be forgotten that Christ, in his divine nature, is, and always was, the Omnipresent God. During the period of his humiliation, he was not only on the earth, but in heaven, and in every part of the universe. His divine nature was not confined, like his human soul, to the place in which the clay tenement dwelt. He did not cease to be God, by becoming man. He was truly God, as well as truly man. sequently he did not cease to possess all the attributes of God. The mysterious union with the human nature, wrought no change in his divinity; for he is "the same yesterday, to day, and forever." He and the Father, and the Holy Ghost, are still one God, "the same in substance, equal in power and glory." The Omnipresent God in a state of exile from heaven! One of the Persons of the Godhead deprived of communion with the other two, and in a state of sore bereavement! The Creator and upholder of the Universe, suffering most distressing privation! How can such a representation be reconciled with the attributes of God!

But what saith the scripture. John 3: 13; "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who is in heaven." Here Christ explicitly declares, that at the time when he uttered this language, he was not only

on earth, but in heaven. He does not speak of himself as having existed in heaven, and as being absent from that blissful abode, in a state of exile; but as being at that time both on earth, and in heaven, as we know he must have been, if he is the Omnipresent God.

Again it is written. John 1: 18; "No man hath seen God at any time; but the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." This declaration was made after the incarnation. And what is here affirmed? Not that the only begotten. Son had been in the bosom of the Father—that he had "enjoyed the intimate fellowship of the Father"—that he was then "sustaining the temporary loss of this glorious fellowship," and that "he longed to have it restored." But it is affirmed that he was at that time "in the bosom of the Father, and consequently in the actual fruition of this glorious fellowship. If he was in the bosom of the Father, was he in a state of exile, suffering distressing privation and bereavement ?

Again Christ said. John 10: 30; "I and my Father are one.' Chap. 14: 9, 10; "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.-I am in the Father, and the Father in me." This language, let it be remembered, was uttered by Christ in the time of his humiliation; and are these declarations consistent with the idea that he was at that time in a state of exile-cut off from all communion with his heavenly Father? But what is the meaning of Christ's prayer, now, O Father, glorify thou me with the glory which

"And

I had with thee before the world was ?"

Does it not imply that he was not at that time in possession of the glory which he had before his incarnation? In reply to this inquiry, I would say, Christ evidently did not pray that he might cease to be incarnate, as he was before the creation of the world. For what then did he pray? Doubtless, that as the incarnate God, possessing a human as well as a divine nature, he might be exalted to the glory which he possessed before his incarnation. This does not imply that Christ's divine nature had become divested of any of its original glory.

But we are told in the scriptures, that Christ" came down from heaven"—that he "came into the world," and that "God sent his son into the world,”—and do not such expressions imply that Christ must have left his celestial abode in order to become incarnate? Certainly not. This is popular language, and when applied to Christ in his divine nature, is not to be understood as when applied to men. When a man is said to come, or to be sent from one place to another, it implies that he has left the place from which he came, and is absent from it. Not so with the Omnipresent God. Christ did not leave heaven to come to earth; for he constantly fills heaven and earth with his presence. He can no more cease, for a moment, to be every where present, than he can cease to be God; for Omnipresence is an essential attribute of his nature. It is true, that the Supreme Being is sometimes represented in the scriptures as being specially present in one place,